Multisection transformers

Using a transformation of the form fig. 1 it is possible to optimize for maximum power delivery, using for example a matching transformation \( Z_{\textrm{in}} = Z_1^2/R_{\textrm{L}} = Z_0\), or \( Z_1 = \sqrt{R_{\textrm{L}} Z_0} \). Unfortunately, such a transformation does not allow any control over the bandwidth. This results in a pinched frequency response for which the standard solution is to add more steps as sketched in fig. 2.

To find a multistep transformation algebraically can be hard, but it is easy to do on a Smith chart. The rule of thumb is that we want to stay near the center of the chart with each transformation.

There is however, a closed form method of calculating a specific sort of multisection transformation that is algebraically tractable. That method uses a chain of \( \lambda/4 \) transformers to increase the bandwidth as sketched in fig. 4.

The total reflection coefficient can be approximated to first order by summing the reflections at each stage (without considering there may be other internal reflections of transmitted field components). Algebraically that is

I asked what business do we have in assuming that \( Z_{\textrm{L}}/Z_0 \) is near unity? The answer was that it isn’t but surprisingly it works out well enough despite that. As an example, consider \( Z_0 = 100 \Omega \) and \( R_{\textrm{L}} = 50 \Omega \). The exact expression

Unlike most of the other classes I have taken, I am not attempting to take comprehensive notes for this class. The class is taught on slides which go by faster than I can easily take notes for (and some of which match the textbook closely). In class I have annotated my copy of textbook with little details instead. This set of notes contains musings of details that were unclear, or in some cases, details that were provided in class, but are not in the text (and too long to pencil into my book), as well as some notes Geometric Algebra formalism for Maxwell’s equations with magnetic sources (something I’ve encountered for the first time in any real detail in this class).

The notes compilation linked above includes all of the following separate notes, some of which have been posted separately on this blog:

Unlike most of the other classes I have taken, I am not attempting to take comprehensive notes for this class. The class is taught on slides that match the textbook so closely, there is little value to me taking notes that just replicate the text. Instead, I am annotating my copy of textbook with little details instead. My usual notes collection for the class will contain musings of details that were unclear, or in some cases, details that were provided in class, but are not in the text (and too long to pencil into my book.)

Unlike most of the other classes I have taken, I am not attempting to take comprehensive notes for this class. The class is taught on slides that match the textbook so closely, there is little value to me taking notes that just replicate the text. Instead, I am annotating my copy of textbook with little details instead. My usual notes collection for the class will contain musings of details that were unclear, or in some cases, details that were provided in class, but are not in the text (and too long to pencil into my book.)

Poynting vector

I can roll with the use of a different symbol (i.e. not \(\BS\)) for the Poynting vector, but I’m used to seeing a \( \frac{c}{4\pi} \) factor ([6] and [5]). I remembered something like that in SI units too, so was slightly confused not to see it here.

Note that the use of \( \boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}} \) instead of \( \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}} \) is what wipes out the requirement for the \( \frac{1}{\mu_0} \) term since \( \boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}} = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}/\mu_0 \), assuming linear media, and no magnetization.

verifying \ref{eqn:advancedantennaL1:20} for a superposition of electric and magnetic dipole fields. This can likely be shown for more general fields too.

Field plots

We can plot the fields, or intensity (or log plots in dB of these).
It is pointed out in [3] that when there is \( r \) dependence these plots are done by considering the values of at fixed \( r \).

The field plots are conceptually the simplest, since that vector parameterizes
a surface. Any such radial field with magnitude \( f(r, \theta, \phi) \) can
be plotted in Mathematica in the \( \phi = 0 \) plane at \( r = r_0 \), or in
3D (respectively, but also at \( r = r_0\)) with code like that of the
following listing

Intensity plots can use the same code, with the only difference being the interpretation. The surface doesn’t represent the value of a vector valued radial function, but is the magnitude of a scalar valued function evaluated at \( f( r_0, \theta, \phi) \).

The surfaces for \( U = \sin\theta, \sin^2\theta \) in the plane are parametrically plotted in fig. 2, and for cosines in fig. 1 to compare with textbook figures.

fig 1. Cosinusoidal radiation intensities

fig 2. Sinusoidal radiation intensities

Visualizations of \( U = \sin^2 \theta\) and \( U = \cos^2 \theta\) can be found in fig. 3 and fig. 4 respectively. Even for such simple functions these look pretty cool.

fig 3. Square sinusoidal radiation intensity

fig 4. Square cosinusoidal radiation intensity

dB vs dBi

Note that dBi is used to indicate that the gain is with respect to an “isotropic” radiator.
This is detailed more in [2].

Trig integrals

Tables 1.1 and 1.2 produced with tableOfTrigIntegrals.nb have some of the sine and cosine integrals that are pervasive in this chapter.

Polarization vectors

The text introduces polarization vectors \( \rhocap \) , but doesn’t spell out their form. Consider a plane wave field of the form

Observe that we have to be careful to use the absolute value of the current phasor \( \BI \), since \( \BI^2 \) differs in phase from \( \Abs{\BI}^2 \). This explains the conjugation in the [4] definition of complex power, which had the form